Homosexuality and the Bible

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by HyperBaseball
That's speculation, 100%. There's only two people who would do that: Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I don't know of any reputable media source who would back them up 100%. Not even BET.

Bull...it's fact. If you don't think people are constantly given biased sentences and accusations because of racial differences, then you're just not paying attention to it. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, BTW, as CRAZY as they might be, and as blind as they might be to their own racial biases, still attract plenty of attention.

Side note: I respect Sharpton despit his craziness, because he's had the gall to go on shows like The O'Reilly Factor and defend his points. Jackson has not...he stays away from places like that.

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by HyperBaseball


Umm... I think everyone is saying that if it's "random" but based on race, then it deserves a harsher penalty. A totally random act of murder would be taken differently. Probably have the murderer psycologically evaluated.

Ugh, here we go again. My point is the same: a guy who murders for reasons that don't make sense to us is no better or worse than someone who murders for a specific reason. The damage is the same. It's crazy to try to measure hate like that, for several reasons, which I've already detailed.

[Aes]

Originally posted by Hellbent
And delemtri perhaps my analogy was not the best analogy. However yours denotes that you have absolutely no understanding of the legal system. There is a cold and precise difference between murder and involuntarily killing someone. You might benefit from watching a few episodes of The Practice.

You're on the side of those who are preaching that the media makes unfair assumptions about hate crimes, and you're telling Oliver to watch The Practice? Am I the only one detecting a hint of hypocrisy here?

[HyperBaseball]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Bull...it's fact. If you don't think people are constantly given biased sentences and accusations because of racial differences, then you're just not paying attention to it. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, BTW, as CRAZY as they might be, and as blind as they might be to their own racial biases, still attract plenty of attention.

If it's fact, then prove it! Show me something, don't just say it is. Back it up.

Ugh, here we go again. My point is the same: a guy who murders for reasons that don't make sense to us is no better or worse than someone who murders for a specific reason. The damage is the same. It's crazy to try to measure hate like that, for several reasons, which I've already detailed.

If you'll read the post, you'll notice that was directed towards Hellbent, who specifically asked about "non-bias related random violence."

I'd also appreciate it if you would comment on the Hitler post. It is the same thing, I know you realize that.

[Chris Roane]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Use your head...if I said we should call them "food crimes" you wouldn't say " a phrase is a phrase." Some phrases are stupid...and that's one of them. Hate crime applies to tons of crimes. If it's based on race, it should be a race crime.

You keep on whining about it. Who cares? There are a lot of "stupid phrases" for things. Get over it.

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Why? Legally, should it be that way? Are you actually saying we should try to measure hatred when sentencing a person?

It is not a measure of hatred, but more of a measure of motive. Motive says a big part of how that person views things (like murder, for example), and possibly if he would repeat his offense. Someone killing "just because" would more likely kill another person for the same reason then someone who got provoked to the point at which he felt there was no other way. Which offender would you feel more safe walking by? There is no question to it. The first person needs much more mental help then the second person.

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Ugh, here we go again. My point is the same: a guy who murders for reasons that don't make sense to us is no better or worse than someone who murders for a specific reason. The damage is the same. It's crazy to try to measure hate like that, for several reasons, which I've already detailed.

The damage is the same, yes. The intent is different, which plays big factor. Like I said before, it tells what type of killer that person is. A person who kills for no reason besides race is a much more dangerous person then someone who kills someone because he was provoked to that point.

I think everyone is pretty much set in their own opinion.

We could try to calm things down a little bit though. I think it is starting to get a little offensive on both sides (and yes, I am included).

[TWTCommish]

If it's fact, then prove it! Show me something, don't just say it is. Back it up.

It's called common sense. Do I ask you to prove to me that people are biased when it comes to their own family members? Of course not. If you don't believe that a white person killing a black person is going to result in unjust punishments, then you're just being naive, sorry to say.

I'd also appreciate it if you would comment on the Hitler post. It is the same thing, I know you realize that.

First of all, I don't know that it is the same thing. Secondly, that doesn't mean it's worse. Hitler was a murderer, but what set him apart from others is that he went out and spread his hatred across many murders.

Hellbent and I have made plenty of points, and I don't think they've all been addressed all that well...however, as I've already said twice, I don't really care about this point, because it hardly matters when compared to the larger point, which is that the hate crime label is thrown around on anything involving two different races. With things like this, you're going to have false accusations flying around. Why do we need to label every d*mn thing?

You keep on whining about it. Who cares? There are a lot of "stupid phrases" for things. Get over it.

Get over it? No offense, but that's not much of an argument. It's a stupid phrase, and I said so. I'm not making this a big deal...you guys are, by disagreeing with it. It's not as if I rant about this all day and night -- I mentioned it, and it was disagreed with, so I defended my point, and then I'm told to get over it. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

BOTTOM LINE: it's a stupid way to phrase it. I don't care if you think that's meaningless. It's not a big deal, but then again, I never said it was. This wouldn't even be an issue.

It is not a measure of hatred, but more of a measure of motive. Motive says a big part of how that person views things (like murder, for example), and possibly if he would repeat his offense. Someone killing "just because" would more likely kill another person for the same reason then someone who got provoked to the point at which he felt there was no other way. Which offender would you feel more safe walking by? There is no question to it. The first person needs much more mental help then the second person.

Do they? For all you know they had a seizure. The second person may have been provoked, but a lot of people are provoked...perhaps that person just can't handle anything even minorly annoying. For the 20 millionth time, this is a gray area, and you can't make those generalizations about it.

The damage is the same, yes. The intent is different, which plays big factor. Like I said before, it tells what type of killer that person is. A person who kills for no reason besides race is a much more dangerous person then someone who kills someone because he was provoked to that point.

Neither of us is a pyschologist, so I'd be reluctant to say that.

Anyway, even though I've said it before, I feel the need to spell it out: my biggest problem lies with the label involved. You cannot get inside someone's head. What happens when a black person kills a white person, or a white person kills a black person? It's labeled a hate crime. Nevermind if it was based on racism...sticking on the label means instant attention.

Now, some cases are obvious. They go to the murderer's house, to find a lot of racist material. But it's not always that obvious. Realize that, through the law of averages, some people are being sentenced to more sever penalties because they happened to kill a person of a different race than their own.

If you make the penalties worse for race-related crimes, you're only widening the gap...you're making it feel like a "team" thing. It's like a battle between the races, and that's not a good thing. Murder is murder is murder. Now, intent is another matter, IMO.

Where's the line drawn here, anyway? You guys seem so confident in these views, and yet they are so gray...the lines are so fuzzy. I would imagine that would spur some reasonable doubt, but apparently not. What if I, being part German, part Scottish, and part Irish, kill someone who's all Irish, because I don't like normal Irishman? Should I get a harsher penalty for that? How can you know why I did it? If I know it will result in a harsher penalty, what makes you think I'll tell you?

I'll sleep a lot more soundly if I know that all life is treated equally: taking a life voluntarily for ANY reason is just as bad. Now, some reasons I have less sympathy for, from a moral standpoint, but from a legal standpoint, it's just not practical to try to guess like that.

And let's be realistic: it's all about race. A white person killing blacks because he hates them will probably get a lot more time than a short person who hates tall people and kills them. Why? Everyone will latch onto it. It becomes some sort of social symbol.

Is beating a child worse if it's not your own child? Even abusive parents much harbor some love for their children, even if they have serious issues. Should a stranger who beats a child receive a harsher punishment than a parent who does?

Furthermore, if the child refuses to behave in any way whatsoever, should we show the parent more leniency? I don't think so. Like I said, I'll understand their plight more, but it's just as wrong.

[Chris Roane]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
I mentioned it, and it was disagreed with, so I defended my point, and then I'm told to get over it. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Well what do you expect after starting your reply like this?

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Use your head...

I probably wasn't thinking too much when I said that, but it was more of a reaction then anything. Anyway, I am moving on and I am sorry I made such a big deal out of it.

Originally posted by TWTCommish
What happens when a black person kills a white person, or a white person kills a black person? It's labeled a hate crime. Nevermind if it was based on racism...sticking on the label means instant attention.

I don't know if that is a very accurate accusation. I haven't looked into it so I really don't know if that is true or not.

Originally posted by TWTCommish
And let's be realistic: it's all about race. A white person killing blacks because he hates them will probably get a lot more time than a short person who hates tall people and kills them. Why? Everyone will latch onto it. It becomes some sort of social symbol.

I don't really know how to explain it, but the different races is something that is much more different then a short person to a tall person. I think a persons' race is much more noticeable then most other attributes, would be one explanation.

Also, if a short person goes around killing a ton of tall people, I think we would be able to conclude that he is against tall people. I highly doubt there are any people out there that would do that though, but you never know.

[TWTCommish]

The short person is hypothetical, because I think we all know this isn't just about discrimination or racism. It's about specific kinds of it. A black man who hated white people out where I live walked into a McDonald's one day and blew away a bunch of them. Let me tell you, there was some outrage, but there seemed to be more when the opposite happened not long afterwards, with a white man killing several black people, and a few other foreigners.

Things like affirmative action, and this project with jobs, are turning things on their head, where the minorities are guaranteed positions, or the employer is told how to hire people. How can anyone here think that that's actually helping things? Crap like this is going to continue to cause people to see us as seperate races...something we should be trying to get over.

How are we going to get over it? Education, and patience. Not by forcing anwyay, that's for sure.

[psalzer]

TWT Commish, I'm guessing you weren't alive pre-1960's. I was. It was only after Supreme Court desicsions, federal legislation and federal enforcement that blacks were permitted equal accomodations by their own government. It took further legislation and years and years of litigation to get them anything close to an equal shot in the world of work. Business has a repsonsiblity to the worker and to the potential worker. There was virtually no avenue of opportunity for black Americans to succeed pre 1960's. The few who were able to beat those odds were very, very remarkable people, but there has to be a fair shot at life for regular people, too. The situation created a permanently impoverished population. It took a long, long time for the anti-discrimination laws to have an effect, but it seems clear to me that finally have. Now we have laws to guarantee opportunities regardless of race, creed, national origin and gender. Those laws are necessary. When I was in my 20's women could be secretaries, teachers and nurses, or of course have more menial jobs. Although you did occasionally meet a female doctor it was rare and the thought of a woman being raised to management level in most businesses was just unheard of. The only thing that changed that were changes in the law regarding hiring practices and admission policies at educational institutions. None of these conditions were moving one inch without the law. I can't emphazize that enough. It's a common perception now that things would have changed anyway. There was no indication that they would have, if you were around at the time.

In laws affecting business, small businesses and mom and pop operations are always treated differently than large concerns and many regulations don't apply to them, so hiring family and so forth is just fine. In large businesses, it's usually just a matter of being careful not to show a pattern of discrimination. If you can do that, then you'll likely win any lawsuits brought against you. The onus of making a case is on the plaintiff, and lawsuits of all kinds are just part of doing business for a corporation.

Hellbent, this country is a republic, not a direct democracy. Direct democracy would = mob rule much of the time. A republic seeks to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. We have freedom of thought and speech. We have freedom to discriminate in certain private organizations. Therefore, the KKK doesn't have to admit racial minorities and can spew their hatred to a point. When they are found to have incited and encouraged violence then there can be legal trouble.

Freedom is complicated. Your right to do something which affects someone else negatively is something that has to be evaluated and re-evaluted because there aren't many perfect answers.

[TWTCommish]

If I understand correctly, you're saying that even though things are more level today, they weren't then, and as such, legislation was needed? Well, you may be right -- but, obviously, I'm commenting on today. I think a lot of progress had been made, and I think a skilled worker will find a job today if they go looking for it, quite simply. A good worker is still hard to find...and it probably always will be.